Thanks Nicky, and very nice to hear from you again!
> So, does this mean I agree with Andy. Not necessarily since I don't think
> that Marxian theory should be put above empirical testing. To say that it
> should be is surely to put up another set of artificial boundaries about
> *what constitutes Marxism as science*. I prefer to think that the question
> is open to social (re)construction and debate.
>
To avoid misunderstanding, my view should not be characterised
as 'above empirical testing'. Rather, in the first place, I would want
to problematise the notion of 'empirical testing' itself. I think you will
find that this phrase actually refers to a range of different
processes, none of which are accurately comprehended by CR, the
'return to practice' view, the Popper-Kuhn-Lakatos tradition, or any
other prevalent tradition.
Andy